AT&T Community Forums

UDP Traffic flooding with Airport Express behind switch

Hi there - I'm hoping someone can help me solve an issue with my AT&T Uverse internet setup.

First a little background; Our AT&T service comes into our guest house/office to the AT&T router/gateway, and is then fed via a hard line from the RG into our house to an AT&T supplied Netgear GS108 switch which then feeds a number of STBs. We then have an Apple Airport Express connected to this switch which feeds the house computers wirelessly.

When I first set this up, I set up the AEX incorrectly in a double NAT configuration - I would much prefer to have it in bridge mode to allow smoother access between all parts of my network, but when I put the AEX into bridge mode (the 'correct' setting), the computers on the AEX wireless become completely flooded by UDP traffic if any of the STBs are on and especially if they're recording.

Apparently the RG can't implement IGMP through the Netgear switch? How can I get the AEX into bridge mode but get the RG to implement IGMP through the Netgear switch?

Any thoughts on this?

Many thanks in advance.

Rich

Responses

rjb_1

Tutor

•

10 Messages

13 years ago

@SomeJoe7777 wrote:
...Now, there is one solution you can do that will work, and that will save you from running another wire. That's to use the NetGear GS-108T switches to implement VLANs.

,,, if you're willing to spend that money instead of running another wire, I'll post how to configure them.

You know, if it's not too much trouble, I'd be very interested to see details of this - it's not cost-prohibitive, and would be better than pulling more wire for me.

Thank you very much!

0

rjb_1

Tutor

•

10 Messages

13 years ago

WOW! That's a mouthful! OK, thanks very much - it'll take me a bit to digest this, but should be very helpful. Hopefully somebody else will find this discussion useful too.

THANK YOU!

rich

0

loaf

Tutor

•

7 Messages

13 years ago

I have read the above post several times, but am still having trouble with an extremely similar issue. I appologize in advance if I am missing something simple.

I am trying to extend my wireless network with a second router (E4200) and am having problems with the multicast traffic. I have read a lot of posts on this, but still having a problem getting it to work correctly. I bought a GS108e hoping that it would help filter the multicast requests since it supported IGMP Snooping v3, but as now read; it doesn’t really support the U-Verse implementation.

RG

|

GS116e (I want to do something similar here, but am trying to keep it simple for now)

|

GS108e

|

Port 1 connected to GS116e

Port 2 U-Verse DVR

Port 8 E4200

RG = 10.0.0.1

E4200 = 10.0.0.2

DHCP is disabled on the E4200, and when I connect to it, I successfully get an IP from the RG and can ping both 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2. When I walk from one side of the house to the other, I can watch my phone switch between the two access points pretty seamlessly. That all works great.

However, ports 1, 2 and 8 are blinking like crazy and my PC connected to the E4200 wireless is showing constant data transfer of ~700KB/sec and the wireless performance is terrible. I am watching TV and I guess that is the multicast traffic I am seeing.

So, I tried to setup a VLAN, but when I do, I no longer get an IP from the RG, when I give myself one manually, I can no longer ping the RG or get obviously get out on the internet.

I was trying to follow this post (entertainment center section) as it is really close to what I want to do and I also want to isolate everything else plugged into the GS108e.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r24678807-

I’ve tried various configurations, but here is what I have now (very similar to the above post):

VLAN 1: T U U U U U U –

VLAN 2: T - - - - - - U

PVID: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

This definitely stops multicast traffic from getting to port 8 (I see the light stop blinking), but whenever I am plugged into the E4200, I can’t seem to get to anything else on the network.

Does anyone see a configuration error? Again, sorry if I am missing something simple, I really have no experience with VLANs.

0

SomeJoe7777

Expert

•

9.4K Messages

13 years ago

Did you also configure the GS116e to deal with the tagged VLAN? And uplink it to the RG twice like the above explanation? You must do all of those things for it to work properly.

Also, I need to mention that the NetGear GS1xxE series may have problems with this. Someone over on DSLReports tried this setup with GS108E switches and couldn't get it to work because of a bug in the VLAN handling (the double uplink required at the RG didn't work right). The write up above uses NetGear GS1xxT switches, which are known to work properly.

0

loaf

Tutor

•

7 Messages

13 years ago

Thanks for the reply.

No, I did not configure any VLANs on the GS116e. The only switch I wanted to eliminate the multicast issue on was the GS108e and did not really mind if there was an issue with devices on the GS116e. I thought I could utilize a VLAN on the last segment of my network to eliminate the multicasting there but, now that I think about it some more I guess I understand.

I need to configure a VLAN and tag ports on the GS116e so that traffic can properly get back the the RG from the GS108e?

It's a shame because I was considering the T switch, but opted for the E because of the v3 support. It turns out that does not work with U-Verse. I would love HTTP access to the switch because I have to RDP to a Windows machine to manage the E switches.

I'll give it a go, but I did see that thread over at DSL Reports earlier today, so I will cross my fingers. I appreciate the help.

0

SpicyTunaCrunch

Tutor

•

7 Messages

13 years ago

I have a similar setup and issue. After much trial and error, I came upon this post and wanted to be sure my concept of how I can "fix" the issue is correct.

I too have the Uverse router and an AirPort, except I have an unmanaged gigabit switch directly attached to the Uverse router, then my network devices feed off of that. With previous ISPs, this wasn't an issue. With Uverse's use of IGMPv3, it's problematic. I have three STBs; one is connected to the Uverse router, the other two through the unmanaged gigabit switch, as they also have data on those network runs. If I add a wireless access point, like an Airport or any other brand, even if the line it's on doesn't have a STB, the device becomes inoperable within a short period of time. Again, this is plugged in through the gigabit switch behind the Uverse router. Wired network interfaces all work as anticipated. Wireshark shows a broadcast traffic packet storm on the wireless access points. I want the access points on a gigabit network; the Uverse's 10/100 ports would degrade overall network performance compared to 802.11n or gigabit capable wired clients.

The question is, if I replace the central unmanaged gigabit switch with one that can handle IGMPv3 traffic properly, should that suffice in allowing me to add wireless access points elsewhere without seeing the multicast packet storm? I would think then it shouldn't start hitting the access point in my office, which is the only device plugged into that network drop if that centralized switch handles the data properly. I have other desktop gigabit switches around at endpoints, but they all would go through the IGMPv3 capable central switch.

Thanks!!!

0

SomeJoe7777

Expert

•

9.4K Messages

13 years ago

Simply replacing the central switch with one that is IGMPv3-snooping capable will not solve the problem. Since there is a mixture of STB units and computers on the downstream switches, IPTV multicast traffic will still flow to the downstream switches whenever an STB is powered on.

Furthermore, I know of no consumer-affordable switches that implement U-Verse-compatible IGMPv3-snooping.

Your best bet is to use VLANs as described above.

0

SpicyTunaCrunch

Tutor

•

7 Messages

13 years ago

Thanks for the response. I have access to beefier switches, some of which do have IGMPv3 snooping capabilities.

Just to be sure, even if I have a IGMPv3 capable switch, if I have a STB and a WIFI access point on attached to it, I'll still see the same symptoms? For example, this somewhat how my network looks now:

AT&T router < - Port 1 - > STB 1

< - Port 2 -> Central Gig Swtich <- Port 1 -> AirPort (WIFI & LAN) <- LAN Ports -> Computer 1, Computer 2, etc

< - Port 2 -> Gigabit Switch < -> STB, PS3, Computer2

< - Port 3 -> Gigabit Switch < - > STB, PS3, Xbox, Receiver, Apple TV

So, If I replace Central Gig Switch, which is unmanaged and consumer grade, with one that's IGMPv3 capable, the AirPort on port 1 will still get slammed with multicast traffic from the TVs on ports 2 and 3 of that switch? The remote switches probably are getting hit with the broadcast storm too, except they're not showing degraded performance. It's only when I add in WIFI access points into the scheme where I see any issue and that's when it's on a shared line (ie - on a switch with a STB at the end point) or if they're on their own dedicated line, but still have a common backplane of the consumer switch. I figured since the Uverse box handles the IGMPv3 and should (in theory) allow me to hook any host/client (WIFI access point, computer, etc) to it without seeing a broadcast storm, putting a switch that supports IGMPv3 should allow me the same, but I could be missing a key point here.

Thanks again for your response.

0

SpicyTunaCrunch

Tutor

•

7 Messages

13 years ago

Ouch. Seems that I can't format my diagram right. I tried a few different ways and it always is skewed. In a more simplistic way, if I have:

2Wire Router

+

|

+ Port 1 ---------- STB #1

| IGMPv3 Snooping Capable Gigabit Switch

+ Port 2----------- + Port 1

|

+ Port 2 ---------------- WIFI Device

| Unmanaged GigE Switch

+ Port 3 ----------------- + Port 1

|

+ Port 2 ---------------- STB #2

|

+ Port 2 ---------------- Computer 1

In this scenario, the WIFI device in Port 2 of the IGMPv3 capable switch will be adversely impacted by the STB #2 plugged into Port 2 of the Unmanaged GigE Switch, which links back to Port 3 of the IGMPv3 capable switch? Or if a STB was just simply plugged into the IGMPv3 switch?

0

ERIC8585

Scholar

•

111 Messages

13 years ago

Another solution is to only connect the STB(s) to the RG and connect one of the other ports on the RG to a switch or router to be used with non STB devices. This way no IPTV traffic will be sent to the port serving the computer network.

I had an issue with IPTV traffic flooding my network because my RG was connected to a switch downstairs and the switch was then connected to a STB, a PS3 and a computer. I resolved this issue by using the HPNA (coax) connection downstairs for the STB instead of an ethernet connection. My only STB using an ethernet connection is upstairs next to the RG.

0